OGSB 2008

The union filed a policy grievance challenging the employer's Absenteeism Control Procedures and Innocent Absenteeism Guidelines, specifically the issuance of non-disciplinary letters after a certain number of absences and the alleged failure to consider individual circumstances.

The arbitrator held that the employer is entitled to issue non-disciplinary letters to address innocent absenteeism and that a trigger of four absence incidents is permissible.

The arbitrator also found that the policy grants sufficient discretion to the employer to modify its application based on an employee's individual circumstances.

The grievance was dismissed, subject to the employer providing 90 days' notice for future changes to the policy.

The grievor, a Probation and Parole Officer, claimed mileage, meal, and travel time expenses for the period she spent backfilling a temporary vacancy at a different office.

The grievor had requested not to return to her home office for personal reasons and accepted the temporary assignment offered by the employer.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the employer did not require the grievor to use her automobile for business purposes, nor did it authorize the travel time.

The travel was considered normal commuting to and from her workplace, and the meal periods did not fall under the collective agreement's travel exemptions.

The union filed a policy grievance claiming the employer was liable to pay for Functional Abilities Assessment Forms (FAAF) required for employees returning to work following a medical absence.

The collective agreement required the employer to pay $10.00 for medical certificates verifying absences of less than five days, and required employees to provide satisfactory medical certificates at their own expense for longer absences.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that a FAAF is an addendum to a medical certificate to facilitate modified duties, not a medical examination required by the employer, and therefore the employer was not obligated to cover its cost.

The Employer brought a motion for an order compelling the grievor to attend the first scheduled day of arbitration, arguing the grievor had demonstrated an unwillingness to participate by missing a mediation session and pre-disciplinary meetings.

The Union opposed the motion, noting it had carriage of the grievance and the grievor intended to attend.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion, finding the requested order unusual and unnecessary at this stage, as the Employer would present its case first and had not shown how the grievor's absence would prejudice its ability to proceed.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievor's discharge and discipline grievances after the grievor repeatedly breached a Board order by disclosing restricted documents to external parties, including the OPP and RCMP.

The employer argued the grievor's conduct demonstrated he was ungovernable and that the employment relationship was irrevocably severed.

The Board found the breaches to be extremely serious but declined to dismiss the grievances as a preliminary matter, noting that the employer had not yet proven the grievor was ungovernable in the first instance.

The Board issued a last chance order, warning that any further breach would result in prompt dismissal of all grievances, and admitted the evidence of the breaches as post-grievance evidence.

The union grieved the termination of the grievor's employment.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the grievor reinstated on strict conditions for a two-year period.

The conditions require the grievor to provide medical notes for absences, explain non-medical absences in a timely manner, and stipulate that any attendance-related discipline will result in the specific penalty of discharge.

The time off work was deemed an unpaid leave of absence, with a two-day suspension on record.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued an interim decision setting a procedural schedule for the union to advise which claims and remedies it wishes to advance and to provide particulars in support of its claim.

The board also set deadlines for determining any outstanding issues relating to the production of particulars and for setting the matter down for mediation or hearing.

The union grieved that an employee was not paid correctly for working two call backs on the Thanksgiving Day paid holiday.

The employee received premium pay and holiday pay under the holiday payment provision of the collective agreement, but the union argued he was also entitled to an additional 8 hours of pay under the general holiday provision.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the holiday payment provision constitutes a complete code for compensating employees who work on a paid holiday, and there is no independent entitlement to additional holiday pay under the general holiday provision.

The union filed a grievance claiming travel and meal expenses for the grievor's temporary assignment from June 2004 to December 2006.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance as untimely, arguing the claims should have been filed as they were incurred.

The Grievance Settlement Board applied the employer's policy directive, which required claims to be submitted by the end of the first quarter of the following fiscal year.

The Board found the claims for 2004 and 2005 were significantly out of time with no reasonable grounds for an extension.

However, the claim for 2006 was raised within the allowable timeframe.

The preliminary objection was partially granted, dismissing the 2004 and 2005 claims but allowing the 2006 claim to proceed.

The union grieved that a seasonal Fire Crew Leader should have been paid overtime rates rather than travel time rates for time spent travelling to a forest fire assignment in British Columbia outside of his regular working hours.

The employer argued that the travel was essentially responsibility-free and thus properly compensated at straight time under the collective agreement's travel time provisions.

The arbitrator reviewed the jurisprudence and concluded that the sole test for determining whether travel time constitutes work is whether the employee had actual job responsibilities during the journey.

Finding that the grievor had no such responsibilities while travelling by rented van and chartered plane, the arbitrator dismissed the grievance.

The grievor alleged that the employer contravened the collective agreement by forcing her into resignation.

Following an oral presentation of facts on consent, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered that the grievor's original seniority date be adjusted to reflect her initial start date.

No monetary compensation was awarded.

The Association alleged that the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care failed to implement the terms of several settlements, some of which were the subject of a prior consent order.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued directions scheduling hearings to address the alleged non-compliance and ordered the employer to produce relevant documents concerning the posting and filling of positions, termination of non-public servants, and conversion of positions.

The union and employer disputed the compensation owed to correctional officers who obtained medical certificates in response to a blanket requirement that was previously found to be improper.

The parties referred the dispute over remedy to the Grievance Settlement Board.

The Vice-Chair issued a procedural order establishing a timetable and requirements for the pre-hearing exchange of particulars and documentary productions.

The union grieved that the employer breached a WSIB return to work protocol by reassigning the grievor from the jail to the Thunder Bay Correctional Centre.

The employer alleged the reassignment was due to interpersonal conflicts at the jail.

To ensure a fair hearing and avoid delays, the Vice-Chair ordered both parties to exchange full written particulars of the material facts and produce all relevant documents prior to the continuation of the hearing, setting out a specific timetable for compliance.

The grievor resigned from his employment and did not rescind his resignation within the statutory time limit.

The union filed a grievance alleging discharge without just cause, claiming the grievor did not intend to resign and was not competent to do so.

After the union presented its case, the employer brought a motion for a non-suit, arguing the union failed to establish a prima facie case.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the employer's non-suit motion, finding that the union had met the standard of a prima facie case.

In accordance with Board practice, no reasons were provided for the denial of the motion.

The grievor, a bus driver, was terminated for allegedly breaching a Conditions of Continued Employment agreement by making an offensive comment to passengers.

The union grieved the discharge and the preceding suspension.

In a 'bottom line' decision issued prior to full reasons, the arbitrator found that the employer failed to demonstrate just cause for termination.

The employer was directed to reinstate the grievor forthwith, with the arbitrator remaining seized to determine what penalty, if any, should be substituted.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer breached the collective agreement by failing to interview the grievor for a Senior Operations Officer position.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance was inarbitrable because the position in question did not fall within the bargaining unit.

The union acknowledged this fact and did not dispute that the employer had no collective agreement obligation to the grievor regarding the filling of the position.

The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the preliminary objection and dismissed the grievance as it did not raise an arbitrable issue.

During an arbitration hearing, the union objected to the introduction of an exhibit and questions regarding the grievor's 2002 strike activity.

The Grievance Settlement Board sustained the objection, ruling that the strike activity was not relevant to the issues in dispute.

Any evidence and particulars regarding the strike activity were ordered stricken from the record.

In an interim decision on an evidentiary issue, the union sought to introduce evidence of settlement discussions between the grievor and the employer in its reply evidence.

The employer objected, arguing the discussions were privileged, irrelevant, and beyond the proper scope of reply.

The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the employer's objection, finding that the evidence of settlement discussions was not relevant to the issues in dispute, as the mere fact that settlement discussions occurred does not support an inference of an admission of liability.

In a grievance concerning the shift of residential counsellors from Classified to Seasonal status, the Grievance Settlement Board issued a preliminary award on the procedural question of which party should present its evidence first.

The Board directed the employer to proceed first with its evidence for reasons of efficiency, as the employer was in a better position to clarify the complex staffing and scheduling changes that occurred between 1991 and 2003.

However, the Board explicitly decoupled the order of proceeding from the onus of proof, confirming that the union still bears the onus.